Massachusetts Sanctions For Sex With Divorce Client And Child Porn Conviction

An attorney has been sanctioned by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for sex with a client

The client engaged the respondent in January 2011, to represent her in extending a temporary restraining order, that the client had obtained a few days earlier, against her husband. At some point, the respondent informed the client that he was also a former licensed social worker. In April, the client engaged the respondent to represent her in seeking a divorce from her husband.

From the beginning of the representation, the respondent’s correspondence with the client was unusually personal in tone. In early April 2011, the client was hospitalized because she had overdosed on drugs and alcohol. The respondent visited the client in the hospital. During May and June 2011, the respondent and client met in his office for a total of at least nineteen hours. During the final week of June 2011, the client was again hospitalized after overdosing on an over-the-counter pain reliever. The respondent again visited the client in the hospital.

At some point in the representation, the respondent and client began a romantic and sexual relationship. In August 2011, the client recognized the danger of being sexually involved with her divorce lawyer and spoke to him about obtaining new counsel. The respondent, however, continued to represent the client in the divorce until her death on October 1, 2011, resulting from an overdose of drugs and alcohol.

By representing the client in a divorce when his representation was materially limited by his own interest in his personal and sexual relationship with her, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.7(b) (as in effect prior to March 26, 2015).

Sanction

This matter came before the Board of Bar Overseers on a stipulation of facts and disciplinary violations and a joint recommendation for suspension. On February 11, 2019, the Board voted to accept the stipulation and file an Information with the Supreme Judicial Court recommending that the respondent be suspended for one year and one day.

Another recently posted summary involved disbarment of a convicted attorney 

On September 29, 2016, the respondent pleaded guilty in the Hingham District Court to four counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of G.L. c. 272, § 29C, a felony. The respondent was sentenced to eighteen months in the house of correction, suspended for three years on various probationary terms.

The respondent’s conviction was based on the following facts. On March 8, 2009, the respondent brought his computer to a computer service for repairs. During the repair process, the technician identified several images of what he suspected was child pornography, and contacted the Hingham Police Department. The police obtained a search warrant and conducted a forensic analysis that showed that the respondent created and therefore possessed child pornography movies on four dates between September 2, 2008 and January 15, 2009. In each of the movies there were images of persons appearing to be under the age of eighteen engaged in acts of sexual conduct involving the sex organs of the child and the sex organs of another person. The respondent reasonably should have known that the person in the images was under age eighteen, and the respondent knew of the content and nature of the movies and images.

(Mike Frisch)